Friendica Social Network (Leipzig)

Don't rename the "Gulf", but do rename the "debt"

The so-called fed "debt" is not like household debt - so rename it accurately.

It's actually a contribution to we the people - the feds are adding financial assets to the non-govt sector.

Over time, the feds have put "nearly $29 trillion into our hands".

"Don’t call it the 'public debt'. Call it the govt’s cumulative financial contribution"

~Stephanie Kelton

https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/trumps-executive-order-to-rename

@maugendre @ApostateEnglishman @AndiiB

#uspol #mmt eg 👇

Trump's Executive Order to Rename Debt and Deficits

Last week, I wrote about Trump’s executive order to begin the process of establishing a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) for the United States.

^{Stephanie Kelton (The Lens)}

@The Sleight Doctor 🃏 @Andii Bowsher

Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (3 Tage her)

DrALJONES hat dies geteilt

The Sleight Doctor 🃏 3 Tage her •

Or private equity, or national savings. The total number of dollars, or pounds sterling in our case, spent into the economy and not taxed back out of circulation. If there was no national debt, then they're be no money (it's actually slightly more complicated than that due to private bank credit, but what can you do with 500 characters...that's basically the situation).

#MMT

DrALJONES hat dies geteilt

DrALJONES 3 Tage her •

🙏

Bryan C Jones 3 Tage her •

This is true, and in the short term, such inflation in the money supply is beneficial. However, in the long term, it leads to price rises. Also, the effects of this kind of contribution is discriminatory, in that those who get the most out of it are those who have access to it first. That is the federal and state administrations, government contractors, utility corporations, etc. Very little of that money does any serious good for the average American.

DrALJONES 3 Tage her •

Re "..long term.. leads to price rises"

Fed spending doesn't automatically lead to price rises Wise govts manage inflation by choosing when, where, & on what to spend.

Eg, feds could double social security payments & every $ would go back into the economy (not inflationary)

See, eg,

Kaboub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN12lOC5qGk

Kelton Debate 16 April 2025 (starts at ~ 30.45 min in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyDVycbRGp0

@ApostateEnglishman @AndiiB @maugendre

#mmt #uspol .

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

^{www.youtube.com}

#uspol #mmt @The Sleight Doctor 🃏 @Andii Bowsher

Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (3 Tage her)

Bryan C Jones 3 Tage her •

Thank you for those resources! I'll take a look when I'm not about to go to bed and get back to you. I would like to hear your thoughts on my second point in which I allege that government spending can be discriminatory.
I would also like to hear any success stories of MMT if you have them.

DrALJONES 3 Tage her •

This study proves that mmt accurately describes how sovereign currency issuing works in the UK:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683

"This paper provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK Bank of England, Government's expenditure, revenue collection & debt issuance processes."

"We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance."

US et al systems are similar.

#mmt #ukpol #uspol #economics .

...2

#ukpol #uspol #economics #mmt

DrALJONES 3 Tage her •

2. I suggest following:

@BillMitchell

Bill is one of the founders of mmt http://billmitchell.org/blog/

Re inequality, it is a political choice. Inequality & austerity are policies of neoliberal governments.

Under socially productive govts, billionaires would be taxed out of existence.

See how US tax rates have changed 👇 Note 94% in 1944

#mmt .

#mmt @Bill Mitchell

Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (3 Tage her)

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

@heinrichsgeist
I agree! The tax structure is shameful, but it will never change for the better because the wealthy in society are the ones with enough political clout to set those rates. Furthermore, even if the tax structure were changed, it would do very little to siphon money from the rich. They are the ones who can afford to structure their finances to avoid the kind of income that can be taxed, e.g. accumulating stocks or commodities rather than taking a salary.

@Heinrichsgeist

DrALJONES 2 Tage her •

Re "but it will never change for the better"

Hmm. So we don't try??

Yes, many govts are owned by oligarchs & do what they're told.

However, it is up to we the people to get out on the streets, etc. to change that!

#resist #undoCitizensUnited #generalstrike .

#generalstrike #resist #undocitizensunited

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

We do try! And we must try! Because the path we are on is unsustainable! But the right way is to limit the power of government and oligarchs. MMT has never shown itself to do anything but increase that power. It is a tool for the wealthy. Not a weapon against them.

DrALJONES 2 Tage her •

Sorry to have to say this, but you know the saying about leading a horse to water...

No point in providing the horse with info if they can't be bothered enquiring into it before they snort about it...

🙂

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

https://ourworldindata.org/how-has-inequality-in-the-uk-changed-over-the-very-long-run

How has inequality in the United Kingdom changed over the long run?

Historical and contemporary sources can provide us with a picture of inequality in the UK over the last 700 years.

^{Our World in Data}

Heinrichsgeist 3 Tage her •

That increasing the money supply automatically leads to harmful price increases is a monetarist superstition - disproved at the latest since quantitative easing after the GFC. In a healthy economy, price increases go hand in hand with an increase in purchasing power (made possible by wage increases). What the state invests in the domestic administration or infrastructure benefits the workers employed there. The wealth distribution problem has its main causes in incorrect taxation, unbalanced market regulation and interest rates on government bonds.

@DrALJONES @ApostateEnglishman @AndiiB

@DrALJONES @The Sleight Doctor 🃏 @Andii Bowsher

DrALJONES 3 Tage her •

Re "..wealth distribution..main causes.. incorrect taxation..."

& let's name & shame govt intentions, namely, inequality & austerity are central policies of neoliberal governments.

Under socially productive govts, billionaires would be taxed out of existence.

See how US tax rates have changed Note 94% in 1944

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

It doesn't always lead to "harmful" price rises in the short run, but it always leads to price rises, and after every boom there is a bust. There have been many boom/bust cycles since 1913 on both sides of the Atlantic, and each time prices and wages rose together during the booms. However, during the busts, prices tend to outpace wages, leaving the poorest in society worse off.

DrALJONES 2 Tage her •

Re "but it always leads to price rises"

Not true. Perhaps you haven't had a chance to check out the specialist links? They explain why your "always" is incorrect.

Kaboub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN12lOC5qGk

Kelton Debate Apr 2025 (starts at ~30.45 min in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyDVycbRGp0

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

^{www.youtube.com}

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumer-price-index

Heinrichsgeist 2 Tage her •

Constant price increases are an inherent feature of a capitalistically growing economy. A responsible central bank provides the necessary liquidity for responsible banks - therefore the money supply must grow with it - and that is not bad per se. Constant-price economies are socialist or medieval, which has other disadvantages.

The subprime bubble could have been prevented by financial market regulation or a responsibly acting banking system. Money supply for speculative purposes is indeed toxic.

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

The subprime lending crisis had many causes. One was the government encouraging banks to lend to those whom they all knew could not pay the loans back. One was the Fed rapidly dropping the interest rates from the relative high in 2007, which further increased bank lending until the system couldn't bear the stress. The banks, the Fed, and the government worked together, consciously or not, to produce the crisis. Why would I trust the same institutions again?

Heinrichsgeist 2 Tage her •

Fair point about the government encouraging lending. Nonetheless, a simple ban on mortgage-backed securities would have prevented the bubble from inflating. My message here is simply that it is not the money supply per se that destabilises the economy , but speculative practices.

@DrALJONES
#mmt

#mmt @DrALJONES

DrALJONES hat dies geteilt

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her (Empfangen 1 Tag her) •

True, but an increase in the money supply does make the economy slightly more top-heavy, so that it can be destabilized more easily.

Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (2 Tage her)

Heinrichsgeist 1 Tag her •

When money supply and demand (for real value investments) are balanced and economic resources aren't overheated, then I see no problem. From my point of view money-related risk arises from the ever growing financial assets that are bound in bonds. That is riskless accumulation of power without contribution to society's welfare.

@DrALJONES

@DrALJONES

DrALJONES hat dies geteilt

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

I just had time to watch the debate. Kelton did well in explaining how debt and deficits work. One thing she glossed over was how incredible it is that the Fed can create money with the press of a button. She is right that the government's debt is our surplus, and that for each ledger, there is a reciprocal. What she didn't go into was the exception to that rule. The Fed's ledger has only credits. Everyone is a debtor to the Fed. Every dollar is a debt instrument.

Bryan C Jones 2 Tage her •

I like what Kaboub said about the government strategically spending money to boost the economy. We know this can happen. For example, America was able to leave behind the Great Depression by spending on the war effort.

The Sleight Doctor 🃏 2 Tage her •

Let's talk about that "money supply". In order for there to be too many dollars, or pounds sterling or whatever, chasing too few goods and services, national spending has to exceed productive capacity. That's why every nation that has ever experienced hyperinflation, had to have the supply side of its economy destroyed first. That hasn't happened here in the UK, nor (yet) in America.

The monetarist idea that *all* spending creates inflation is simply wrong.

#MMT

#mmt

DrALJONES hat dies geteilt

⇧